4.5 Article

Longitudinal variations and predictors of increased perceived impact of multiple sclerosis, a two-year study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 270, 期 1-2, 页码 53-59

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2008.01.014

关键词

multiple sclerosis; MSIS-29; perceived impact; predictors; prospective; longitudinal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore variations and the capacity of selected factors - contextual factors, disease-related characteristics, cognition, fatigue, mood and time - to predict an increase in the perceived physical and psychological impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) over a two-year period. Methods: At an MS specialist clinic, 219 outpatients were included in the study and data were collected every 6 months. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale was used for assessment of the perceived physical and psychological impact of MS. For statistical analysis of changes in impact during the study period, Friedman ANOVA was used and predictors of increased impact were explored with Generalized Estimating Equations employing proportional odds models. Results: The majority had changes in perceived physical impact of established important magnitude and the psychological impact varied significantly. A period of more than 10 years since diagnosis, cognitive disability, fatigue and signs of depression were independent predictors of increase in physical impact. Weak or moderate sense of coherence, absence of immunomodulatory treatment, fatigue and signs of depression were independent predictors of increase in psychological impact. Conclusion: The fluctuation in perceived impact should be taken into account in clinical decision-making and when designing studies and interpreting the results. This study identifies the predictors of increased perceived physical and psychological impact that health-related services should pay special attention to, in order to provide interventions aimed at minimizing the perceived impact of MS. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据